Impulse Buy....HPX 500!

Jay Nemeth

Jay Nemeth

Member
I was in LA today prepping a camera at Panavision, and my 2nd, Paul Brady, said "let's swing by Able Cinetech and check out the 500." So we did and an hour later I walked out with one.....and 4 16 gig cards, and batts, and rods for my MB and follow focus, etc. I thought I would grab one in a couple of months, but they had an awesome price and great service so now the company credit card is a little lighter, but I think that's a good thing.

Barry's review was pretty much what I was hoping for, and I have access to several HD lenses that I use on the f900 and Varicam, so this was a no-brainer. As soon as I finish this other job, I'll post my impressions and tests alongside the HVX 200.

I'm pulling together a feature to shoot this fall, and the HPX 500 just got the job. Let's see how it does!

Jay
 
You're a dangerous man w/ a credit card ! I thought these cameras were backordered til Bastille Day. Let us know how camera 's color looks right out of the box. couple early reports of a yellow-green tint on another board but nothing that can't be tweaked out.
 
Jay: I bought mine from Able's as well, great service and a good source of info..

I got the Chrosziel Varicam base for mini-rods, is that the one you got? If so, be aware that it doesn't have the little pins that prevent lateral motion.. when you take the stock bottom plate off, you will discover that it is held in place by four very short M3 screws, and that's all, except for the aforementioned guide pins...

When you mount the Varicam plate, you will realize that there's not much holding the camera on the tripod - scary..

What I did was

1st) went to a hardware store and bought four longer M3 50 pitch metric screws to attache the plate..

2nd) made small rectangular strips of aluminum that I screwed into the sides of the Chrosziel plate with 6/32s to "wedge" against the camera's base.. basically I'm trying to prevent lateral twisting (like the pins do). Be careful that there is about 1/4" clearance from the bottom of the plate so it will slide onto the tripod adapter...
 
Only had a half hour today to fire it up, but it looked great. This camera is the real deal....works and feels just like any other full-tilt HD camera. Next week I'll shoot some tests alongside the HVX200 and a Sony f900. Shooting with a 435 tomorrow and then doing an HD telecine on Monday. I'm going to try to double shoot a scene or two with the HPX500 and see how it holds up against film.

Jay
 
Hi Jay,

I really look forward to your feedback. I am in the market for an for a temp. "A" cam to shoot wildlife, SEC football,music videos, hi-end corp and docs while I wait on the RED package. The HPX would then would slide into a great "B" cam role. There are many things that I cannot stand about about the HVX-200 (please take no offense anyone--yes I have free access to one...though I am a huge panny fan) but the HPX500 seems to quell those concerns. My question of concern is over the new "cheaper" lenses from canon/fuji--- would panasonic consider "package deals" that would include the higher-end lenses at some point soon. I am in the market right now to purchase.

Thank you to each and all in advance for a response to my querry. I do appreciate the professional feedback.

Cheers,

Andrew Benz
 
Unfortunately, I won't be able to tell you much about the affordable CAC lenses. I'm using the $30,000 Canon 4.7 which I already had. I think you can get these types of lenses from vendors like Abel for around $26K.

We were behind schedule all day, so I didn't get to double shoot with the 35mm camera. I'll be back wednesday, and will do some tests then.

Jay
 
Can someone quantify the difference between the least expensive and most expensive lense for the cam?

Is there a huge difference?
 
Are you referring to the CAC lenses or all HD glass? Among the CAC lenses I notice there are several lenses with same zoom range but the ones with focal length doublers would of course cost more.
All the CAC glass is relatively inexpensive compared to the other HD lenses available which should be better corrected, breathe less, minimized CA, etc.
My dealer recommends a more expensive non-CAC lens which cost a few thousand dollars more than than the most expensive CAC lens. Not sure if he is pushing it because the CAC lens isn't in stock or it really is "better"
 
I got a chance to play with a functional CAC lens (the prototype didn't work 100%) and I've got to say, I'm impressed with the CAC functionality. I tested it by disconnecting the lens cable (thus disabling the CAC function) and pointing the camera at a circumstance that would exhibit some CA, and then plugging the lens back in (thus activating CAC) and yeah, it definitely works very nicely.

There's no substitute for the best glass you can get, of course, but the CAC is a quite clever solution that works impressively well in the very limited circumstance I tested it in.
 
Barry,
Was the lens you tested in your HPX article the prototype or functional lens? You mentioned heavy breathing(!) with the Canon CAC 2x lens which you attributed to the lower cost HD glass in general. Another early tester mentioned very little breathing with the same lens.
I take it that CAC lenses are designed specifically for HPX cameras only and would not perform as well on other CAC-incompatible cameras. My dealer has been recommending a more expensive Canon HJ series HD lens but I want to compare lenses side by side before I commit.
 
I am looking at stepping my main camera units up from HVX's to HPX's. What are everyones personal recommendations?

I am receiving the bulk of my business from the DFW market, full production services, camera & lighting equipment, rental and sales. We are just getting started and stepping carefully.

I have deeply considered shifting the bulk of my camera equipment over towards the new HPX500 in light of it's 2/3" chip and Lens capabilities. I feel like this could take the place of the HVX in the market over the past 2 years - being the most highly used camera for effectively priced High Definition productions.

What are your thoughts? Just dreams? What is everyones predictions for the rental/sales market of HVX's compared to HPX's over the next few months?
 
The one I used in Alaska was a prototype in all ways; I don't think the CAC function was completely working yet, but I've since had a chance to work with the Fujinon and Canon CAC lenses and I can say that yeah, CAC is cool. It works.

I noticed lots of breathing with the Canon; set it to full wide angle and roll the focus ring and you'll see breathing. Not so noticeable at full telephoto, but quite noticeable at wide angle. I think I'm more partial to the Fujinon lens now that I've had a chance to use it a bit.

As far as CAC lenses not performing as well on a non-CAC camera: well, yeah, that's kind of the whole point actually. The CAC lenses are inexpensive lenses; a CAC-enabled camera can correct for the lens's shortcomings, and a non-CAC camera can't. Better glass will give better results, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top